Basically the issue comes down to objectives. Do you want to simply evaluate players as a stand alone activity, evaluate for a fantasy competition, evaluate for historic research purposes.

First and third instances media reports and voting are completely useless. Second instance they contribute to hair-splitting as opposed to defining data. The biggest problem with media voting is that the formats(end of season only, first half/second half etc.) is so variable that coming up with adjustment amongst formats would be a nightmare, value of votes, 1st, 2nd etc is also very variable within the formats.

estimated TOI. The estimated part is the rub. Especially when you get into the pre-expansion era, the roster sizes, rules changes, strategies, etc.

The basic objective should be finding the boxscores as far back as possible and learning how to do the mathematical forensics on the boxscores, the results and schedule.

Reibel publicly stated his heart wasn't into it after the trade to Chicago.

My guess is it's a little of everything - Sandford wouldnt be the only player to retire rather than play for the Black Hawks or the Rangers of the era. I would guess it went like this - he was declining somewhat (normal for a forward to decline around 28, especially one who played a rough game), a more talented pool of younger players was taking scoring line jobs, and he didn't see the point of continuing his career as a role player for a bottom feeder for an O6-era paycheck.

Of course, that's just an educated guess. If I have time later, I'll try to find info about his retirement on google archives

There is definitely something to the idea that the quality of play rose quite a bit from the early to mid 50s, but the players who were supplanted tended to be declining anyway - but once they started declining, they were out.

In the interview with Sandford linked here he states that he retired in 1958 and took a job in Boston. It's not clear what he was doing in 1957, unless he misspoke and meant he retired in 1956.

Wikipedia says:

Quote:

For many years after his retirement, Sandford served in various off-ice capacities for the Bruins, as a goal judge, official scorer and eventually supervisor of off-ice officials. He became a curling enthusiast after his playing days [1] and was one of the players of the Bruins' first alumni team. [2]

He certainly was in a hurry to return to Boston after retiring, if nothing else

15 writers named Streit on their Norris ballot and 21 named him on their All Star ballot in 2009, hardly "token" voting. Yes, that was the best season of his career.

It is “token” voting though, because it means that just 11% of Norris voters thought he was even top-5 and 16% of all-star voters thought he was even top-6. Who knows what the rest of them thought?

Quote:

So your favorite measures of defenseman performance - ice time and adjusted plus minus - suddenly fail to be applicable when it comes to Mark Streit, who for two year absolutely owned in both measures? Why is that?

You have to really reach into the past to call adjusted +/- one of my two favourite measures of defenseman performance. It can be useful but over a longer period of time and only when comparing similar roles. (Joe Reekie was a dominant 3rd pairing defenseman, but a 3rd pairing defenseman). There are many players with a horrible adjusted +/- who I still like a lot as players, because other factors still demonstrate they were heavily used and valued players. (if coaches always play best on best – and they typically do – then some players have to be the worst of those best, and they’ll have bad adjusted +/-; Zhitnik comes to mind immediately)

Streit did perform well those 2 years, but the underlying numbers show why adjusted +/- over a short time is not that reliable (too influenced by matchups, linemates/teammates, offensive situations, zone starts, QoC, etc). I wouldn’t say he “absolutely owned” in ice time. He was the #1, yes. What other outcome could you envision on those teams? If any of those defensemen got more ice time than him, it would be a major indictment of his value.

Before underlying numbers are considered, ice time is my favourite measure, without a doubt, but the strength of the team is very close behind (with the defensive strength of the team behind that). It shouldn’t need to be repeated that, although being a #1 defenseman at any time is a feather in one’s cap, not all #1 defensemen are created equal. (a few people like to remind me of this but I don’t think anyone pays more attention to this fact than I do)

Quote:

As for 2010, hockey is a subjective game and writers votes are always all over the place. You know this. Given Streit's stats, especially compared to his teammates, do you really think Streit wouldn't have gotten more votes if his team made the playoffs? Was he playing at a lower level than Yandle was when Yandle finished 5th in Norris voting? I don't know. I like to think that for most players, there all star records even out to about what they should be, so long as you keep trends in voting in mind

Re: Yandle: my gut says he wasn’t, because it’s not that easy to imagine Streit being the #1 on a good team. He was on an average team in 2008 and was not close to being a #1. Yandle led the defense of a strong team (and strong defensive team) in 2011 in both overall and ES time, although he was not polished or relied upon that much defensively. TBH, players like Doughty, Keith, Boyle and Pronger were surely better than this Johnny-come-lately but fell off the map as far as voting was concerned, mainly because of hockey card stats. I don’t think a 5th place finish was fully warranted and he should have been in “rich man’s Streit” territory but the stars kind of aligned for him, and in the end his 5th place vote is significant and based on significant votes, so good for him, and it does belong as a reasonably well-weighted part of his resume as long as the context is considered.

Re: “evening out to about where they should be”, for the top 5 or 6 players, yes. But in a system where the writers get to name 5 players, the voting points system doesn’t make logical sense, and it is too offense-biased, we can’t really be sure of the others. In 2010, because of three votes, Streit earned more voting points than all but nine NHL defensemen. Do I think that is reasonable basis to conclude that he was “about 10th” that year? Not at all. I wouldn’t conclude this for 9th-place Ehrhoff, either. 7th and 8th place Weber and Chara are much less inconclusive and moreso beyond them.

Quote:

Unless you apply the same standard to older players, this is awfully close to nitpicking modern players while glossing over the flaws of older guys. We all know the trends in voting - the voters usually have favored offense over defense since expansion.

I don’t think so, because it can work the other way, too. Seabrook is a good example. His greatness is almost entirely uncaptured by all-star and Norris results. We wouldn’t know this if he wasn’t a modern player who we’ve seen, and whose TOI, QoC, hits and blocked shots can be on display. If he played in the O6, how would we know he was any better than Al Langlois?

It’s just a matter of accepting that at different junctures, different factors must be weighed more and less heavily for analyzing defensemen.

Basically the issue comes down to objectives. Do you want to simply evaluate players as a stand alone activity, evaluate for a fantasy competition, evaluate for historic research purposes.

The latter is the primary focus but there is no reason why it can’t tie into the former directly.

Quote:

First and third instances media reports and voting are completely useless. Second instance they contribute to hair-splitting as opposed to defining data. The biggest problem with media voting is that the formats(end of season only, first half/second half etc.) is so variable that coming up with adjustment amongst formats would be a nightmare, value of votes, 1st, 2nd etc is also very variable within the formats.

It’s not really that variable. The first/second half voting style was a relatively small part of history, and the end of season results pass the smell test and do a reasonable job of showing who was performing well over the course of a whole season.

Quote:

estimated TOI. The estimated part is the rub. Especially when you get into the pre-expansion era, the roster sizes, rules changes, strategies, etc.

Then do better.

And I don't care about pre-expansion TOI estimates because there is no such thing. the data necessary to approximate those figures does not exist.

I would be interested to hear how you think "roster sizes, rules changes, strategies" affect the basic premise that players who are on the ice more often will have more goals for and goals against.

Quote:

The basic objective should be finding the boxscores as far back as possible and learning how to do the mathematical forensics on the boxscores, the results and schedule.

Be my guest.

Getting the 1st and 2nd assists has been useful so far, as well as a ES/PP/SH breakdown of scoring going back to 1953. Beyond that a penalty breakdown would be useful – who was taking all the obstruction penalties, and who had high PIMs only from good old fisticuffs? And so on.

But hey, we’re all busy people. Right now we’re doing our best with what we have. No one’s stopping you from taking it further.

Adjusted plus minus was in a few drafts ago but I guess it's out of style now

I have a very easy time thinking Streit would be a #1 on a good team in 2009 and 2010, considering he was at least as good and probably better than any defenseman on a NJ Devils team or a NY Rangers team that made the playoffs both seasons.

I think the difference is that as a Canadian, you think mostly of Streit's time in Montreal. I think mostly of his time on the Islanders with some vivid memories of the 2010 Olympics mixed in (I had no idea who he was in 2006, but he was reportedly very good then).

Seabrook actually did receive more All Star votes than just about any other contenporary defenseman of the era with his relatively unimpressive stats, but yes, the voting record only tells some of the story with him

Seabrook actually did receive more All Star votes than just about any other contenporary defenseman of the era with his relatively unimpressive stats,

See, it's statements like this that can be troublesome. I count a total of nine votes received, ever, for the norris and all-star teams combined. There is just no basis there on which to draw any conclusions. Only including the years where that sparse recognition was earned, a combined 532 ballots were cast and he was named on just 9 of them. I would not claim a guy with 25 mentions in this time must have been better, and it's just as likely a guy with 0 mentions in this time was better than Seabrook.

(the 2010 rangers missed the playoffs, but just by a shootout. But I disagree that he'd have earned more icetime than Staal or Martin, off the top of my head)

See, it's statements like this that can be troublesome. I count a total of nine votes received, ever, for the norris and all-star teams combined. There is just no basis there on which to draw any conclusions. Only including the years where that sparse recognition was earned, a combined 532 ballots were cast and he was named on just 9 of them. I would not claim a guy with 25 mentions in this time must have been better, and it's just as likely a guy with 0 mentions in this time was better than Seabrook.

This is a good point, but I wouldn't completely dismiss a low but nontrivial number like 9 all star votes, either. That's the equivalent of 9 reporters saying "I think he was worth being recognized." certainly not close to everything, but worth noting.

Edit: agree that you can't even attenpt to outright "rank" players based on opinions by a small minority

Quote:

(the 2010 rangers missed the playoffs, but just by a shootout. But I disagree that he'd have earned more icetime than Staal or Martin, off the top of my head)

Right, forgot about missing the playoffs via shootout. I remember much joy at the Rangers misfortune now that you remind me

Out of curiosity, how often did you watch the Islanders those seasons? I thought Streit was easily better overall than Staal at that point, and he certainly stood out more than Martin. Maybe it was a case of a player standing out more because his teammates were crap, but I thought Streit was a huge difference maker - the Islanders actually looked NHL-quality when he was on the ice! And there was a minority opinion around the area that Streit should be a Norris finalist in 2009 - nobody ever said that about Martin

Right, forgot about missing the playoffs via shootout. I remember much joy at the Rangers misfortune now that you remind me

You were probably still stinging from Avery’s antics. Or was it 1997? Nah, it was probably 1994. :

Quote:

Out of curiosity, how often did you watch the Islanders those seasons? I thought Streit was easily better overall than Staal at that point, and he certainly stood out more than Martin. Maybe it was a case of a player standing out more because his teammates were crap, but I thought Streit was a huge difference maker - the Islanders actually looked NHL-quality when he was on the ice! And there was a minority opinion around the area that Streit should be a Norris finalist in 2009 - nobody ever said that about Martin

Oh, hell, I would have seen Streit only when he played against the Leafs (4X a year) and when he played in the playoffs (not in 4 years). I would never go out of my way to watch the Islanders play and if I did, I wouldn’t admit it.

But that wouldn’t make me different from any of us, at least I don’t think so.

Anyway, I would say Staal was better in 2010, he was already getting the reputation as one of the most solid defensemen in the NHL, obviously in ’09 he was still green but I find it hard to believe Streit would usurp Roszival or Redden, who had for three years been #1/2 defensemen on very strong teams while he had been #5-6 on a very mediocre one.

Martin in 2009 played 3.5 minutes more than anyone else – on a 104 point team! Let’s not downplay that. In the three seasons prior and the last two (so ignoring an injury-wrecked season) he has earned at least 23 minutes a game, always for teams that earned home ice advantage in the first round of the playoffs.

It’s a big leap to suggest Streit could have anchored the defense corps of their teams just because he anchored that of the Isles, especially when the Montreal coaching staff trusted him with 16 minutes a game over the two previous seasons.

It’s possible he needed the exact situation he walked into on Long Island, to thrive.

You were probably still stinging from Avery’s antics. Or was it 1997? Nah, it was probably 1994. :

Oh, hell, I would have seen Streit only when he played against the Leafs (4X a year) and when he played in the playoffs (not in 4 years). I would never go out of my way to watch the Islanders play and if I did, I wouldn’t admit it.

But that wouldn’t make me different from any of us, at least I don’t think so.

It would definitely make you different from some of us, or have you forgotten where I live and what team I'm a fan of? Islanders and Devils fans tend to a a mutual fondness for each others' teams (the enemy of my enemy is a friend), both teams are often shown on the same channel (back to back when they play at different times), and all three NYC area teams share pregame, postgame, and intermission reports now as a cost cutting move. So I probably saw all or most of about 15-20 Islanders games a season in 2008-09 and 2009-10, as well as probably about 40 Islanders postgame reports each year. When I say I remember Streit more as an Islander than a Canadien, I mean it.

Quote:

Anyway, I would say Staal was better in 2010, he was already getting the reputation as one of the most solid defensemen in the NHL, obviously in ’09 he was still green but I find it hard to believe Streit would usurp Roszival or Redden, who had for three years been #1/2 defensemen on very strong teams while he had been #5-6 on a very mediocre one.

You find it hard to believe Streit would usurp Wade Redden, who was sent to the minors the following season? Staal was up and coming defensively, but Streit was easily more valuable overall at the time.

Quote:

Martin in 2009 played 3.5 minutes more than anyone else – on a 104 point team! Let’s not downplay that. In the three seasons prior and the last two (so ignoring an injury-wrecked season) he has earned at least 23 minutes a game, always for teams that earned home ice advantage in the first round of the playoffs.

Are you seriously lecturing me on how the 2008-09 Devils operated? I'm well aware of Paul Martin's importance to that team; he was the only defenseman on the team who didn't handle the puck like a grenade, so he was extremely valuable. But as an overall performer, I don't see him as any better than the 2011-12 version of Andy Green.

Quote:

I doubt he could have anchored the defense corps of their teams just because he anchored that of the Isles, especially when the Montreal coaching staff trusted him with 16 minutes a game over the two previous seasons.

It’s possible he needed the exact situation he walked into on Long Island, to thrive.

It's possible he could only thrive on the Islanders. It's also possible that the Montreal coaching staff had a deep defense and was reluctant to trust a small European who had spent his entire career on the big ice surface with major minutes.

I'm really surprised by this fairly widespread view that Streit was nothing more than an offensive defenseman on a bad team. Stats aside (+5 on a team that was -79 in 2008-09), did nobody watch the Switzerland vs Canada and Switzerland vs USA games in the 2010 Olympics?

You find it hard to believe Streit would usurp Wade Redden, who was sent to the minors the following season?

In 2009 (which I was referring to), yes. In 2010, maybe not, as he was in a steep decline.

Also, we all know Redden would be in the NHL if his salary more closely matched his performance, so saying he was sent to the minors as evidence he wasn't very good isn't the whole truth.

Quote:

Are you seriously lecturing me on how the 2008-09 Devils operated? I'm well aware of Paul Martin's importance to that team; he was the only defenseman on the team who didn't handle the puck like a grenade, so he was extremely valuable. But as an overall performer, I don't see him as any better than the 2011-12 version of Andy Green.

I'm not sure why you took that as a "lecture" but in any case I'm inclined to believe you when you talk about the Devils. However, Martin went to a team that has been, overall, about as good, but with many more "name" defensemen on its roster (Letang, Orpik, Michalek, and he has continued to be just as relied on as he was in NJ.

Quote:

It's possible he could only thrive on the Islanders. It's also possible that the Montreal coaching staff had a deep defense and was reluctant to trust a small European who had spent his entire career on the big ice surface with major minutes.

- I don't think it's possible Montreal had a deep defense. We can see who was there. It was, at best, average.
- And yes, it is possible that his level of talent and play merited more time than he got, but it is difficult to prove that, and typically when a player deserves more time he gets it pretty quickly. (the other way around, when their play shows them to deserve less time, doesn't always happen as fast)

Quote:

I'm really surprised by this fairly widespread view that Streit was nothing more than an offensive defenseman on a bad team. Stats aside (+5 on a team that was -79 in 2008-09), did nobody watch the Switzerland vs Canada and Switzerland vs USA games in the 2010 Olympics?

can't say I would have watched the USA game, but the Canada game, definitely. I don't recall much of it though, and I'd be hesitant to conclude much based on one game.

You can see why I say he's one of the most difficult players of all-time to judge.

Not sure if I can help in this, but the current NHL is more my speed than the history right now (obviously). As someone that is from the same metro area as TDMM and who has lived with an Islanders fan for a few years, I've seen way too many Isles games over the last 7 or 8 years...

Streit didn't see a ton of time as a (NHL) youngster in Montreal, but that was a product of their depth and Streit's inexperience. He was also used at forward at times for the Habs, if memory serves...when Souray moved on, Streit took some more of the offense and performed admirably (out-scored Markov on his own team despite 7 less minutes per game). Streit wasn't exactly a rock defensively and didn't face quite as tough minutes as Markov, but his transition game and his ability to jump in to the play was even better than Souray's ability the year before...

The next year, Streit's first with the Isles, the entire team ran through him...he led the team in scoring by a sizeable margin and was the catalyst for all of the team's transitional offense...the team was an unmitigated disaster in all facets, between the goalie carousel and the injuries and the whole bit, but Streit was a standout on the team and just did absolutely everything for them...

Not that I take any stock in plus/minus at all...but look at the TOI, Streit was a +5 on a team that was a -78...normally I wouldn't even find that to be too amazing, but look at the guys that spent anywhere near that much time on the rink: TOI: Streit 1866 (+5), Gervais 1490 (-15), Witt 1320 (-34), Park 1219 (-13)...I mean, who was on the ice with this guy?

He's always been way better than Rozsival (who I saw was brought up in this thread), better than Redden in his dwindling years (obviously), better than Staal in 2009 and 2010, and probably narrowly better than Martin in the same time period...if that's what we're going for...

Streit didn't see a ton of time as a (NHL) youngster in Montreal, but that was a product of their depth and Streit's inexperience. He was also used at forward at times for the Habs, if memory serves...

thanks for coming in and commenting.

What depth are you referring to? This was an average team at best.

I thought I recalled him getting some time at forward too, but I thought it was a case of a guy "occasionally playing the wing on the PP" or something to that effect. Would have made sense when Souray was there, maybe not so much after.

I tried looking at his 2008 game logs to help us here, but it looks like a reasonable distribution from game to game. Nothing that would make us say "aha, these games he was definitely a forward"... in 2006 and 2007 (years that are largely irrelevant if we're trying to judge Streit at his best) there are more cases of this.

However, the Habs do have 35 "extra" GP by defensemen*, so if they were dressing 6 every night, Streit did play some forward.

(*this does not include Dandenault, who exclusively a forward in this season)

Quote:

when Souray moved on, Streit took some more of the offense and performed admirably (out-scored Markov on his own team despite 7 less minutes per game). Streit wasn't exactly a rock defensively and didn't face quite as tough minutes as Markov, but his transition game and his ability to jump in to the play was even better than Souray's ability the year before...

It appears that his ability to jump into the play was as good as you say. In 2008 he actually outscored Markov at even strength, 37 to 30. they were more or less even on the PP, and one doesn't really call PP time "jumping into the play". Of course, this is assuming he was always a defenseman (otherwise his higher point total could be easily explainable by position) and as of now I don't have anything that conclusively proves otherwise.

There are other red flags in this season though. You're right that he didn't play great competition (Markov and Komisarek handled the hardest, Rookie O'Byrne the worst, and everyone else was in the middle, Streit included. He was the most sheltered from a zone starts standpoint too. And his GF:GA ratio was the worst on the team (0.89), despite being their best producing defenseman. If you are producing the most offense but still come out with the worst GF:GA ratio, you know what that says about your defense. He was one of only two defensemen on the team who had a huge discrepancy in on/off goals against (from 2.43 off to 2.88 on). the other was Markov, but Markov played top lines and had a ton of defensive zone starts.

This season absolutely screams "offensive specialist" and it looks like his sheltering was absolutely warranted. I can't agree that he was playing at a level that warranted more minutes and that the only thing holding him back was "depth" and a cautious coaching staff. And this was 2008 - I can't imagine 2007 and 2006 were much different but of course the in-depth numbers aren't there to show it.

Quote:

The next year, Streit's first with the Isles, the entire team ran through him...he led the team in scoring by a sizeable margin and was the catalyst for all of the team's transitional offense...the team was an unmitigated disaster in all facets, between the goalie carousel and the injuries and the whole bit, but Streit was a standout on the team and just did absolutely everything for them...

Not that I take any stock in plus/minus at all...but look at the TOI, Streit was a +5 on a team that was a -78...normally I wouldn't even find that to be too amazing, but look at the guys that spent anywhere near that much time on the rink: TOI: Streit 1866 (+5), Gervais 1490 (-15), Witt 1320 (-34), Park 1219 (-13)...I mean, who was on the ice with this guy?

This was obviously an excellent year and may be proof that he needed to step into a certain type of situation to thrive. The +/- thing is interesting too, but it also needs to be qualified.

1. He didn't do "absolutely everything" for them - for example, it was Witt and Martinek who played the best oppositon, not Streit.
2. You're right that it's odd looking at all those other figures and concluding "who played with him?" because their +/- should have been dragged up towards his. And they had to be, and clearly it was different guys all season. But here's the thing: it directly correlates with the zone start breakdown for the team too. As a horrible team, they got a relatively low number of offensive zone starts. Streit was the only one over 50%, with 56.4. And just like +/-, there was always another defenseman on the other point, having their otherwise tiny zone start% dragged up towards 50%. He was clearly the only defenseman the team made an effort to regularly play in offensive situations.
3. +/- attempts to measure both offense and defense. No one doubts Streit's puck skills, he is excellent offensively and obviously paced that team. But even among this no-name defense corps, he was nothing special defensively. His GAA of 2.90 on versus 3.10 off is very mediocre considering his huge zone start advantage and average competition faced.
4. I don't know what studies have been done on the significance of zone starts versus finishes, but I thought that it was interesting that he finished his shifts in the offensive zone just 50.1% of the time. How did Radek Martinek, who started in the O-zone just 38% of the time, finish his shifts in there more often than Streit did?

He's always been way better than Rozsival (who I saw was brought up in this thread), better than Redden in his dwindling years (obviously), better than Staal in 2009 and 2010, and probably narrowly better than Martin in the same time period...if that's what we're going for...

I think this is an underestimation of the value of being a very reliable all-situation defensive player. Streit can move the puck, but it's his defensive value (and particular, what his defensive value would be to a good or even decent team) that is really in question, and that forms at least half of his overall value, and it's his overall value that is ultimately important here.

What do you mean by "always"? Rozsival was the go-to guy on a playoff team for four years after the lockout as Streit struggled to get icetime and stay afloat defensively on a mediocre team. Redden in 2009 had outstanding defensive stats (2.09 GAA), relative to his 95-point team that was a quarter goal better defensively than the league average. Martin in 2009 was the #1 guy on a 100 point team, played the toughest minutes, was not sheltered in the offensive zone, and still killed from a GAA standpoint (1.87 on, 2.02 off).

It is extremely questionable to think that Streit could have joined either of those teams and jumped in to be their #1 in any effective manner.

He's always been way better than Rozsival (who I saw was brought up in this thread), better than Redden in his dwindling years (obviously), better than Staal in 2009 and 2010, and probably narrowly better than Martin in the same time period...if that's what we're going for...

This is what I saw too during those two seasons. Martin is the only one who would give me pause, but I think Streit was probably better. I realize Redden would still be in the NHL as a depth player if there were no salary cap, but the idea that he was better than Streit during the one and only season when Streit had a legit case as a top 5 defenseman in the league is baffling to me.

This is what I saw too during those two seasons. Martin is the only one who would give me pause, but I think Streit was probably better. I realize Redden would still be in the NHL as a depth player if there were no salary cap, but the idea that he was better than Streit during the one and only season when Streit had a legit case as a top 5 defenseman in the league is baffling to me.

The numbers and perceptions don't match in this case. I realize the perception about Redden is that he was in a freefall, but the numbers show him to be very solid and steady as of 2009. His "hockey card stats" went into the tank much sooner than any other part of his game, from the looks of things.

And if Streit was arguably top-5 I sure wouldn't say that this is questionable (because Redden was no longer in that class), but I don't think he was arguably top-5. A closer look at the numbers suggests that many all-around defensemen should be viewed as better. Not everyone had his offensive impact, but his defensive impact was, overall, probably still on the below average side with all things considered.

Anyway, you guys are using Streit "properly" so we're probably wasting energy on this as of now.

Though the case may be pronounced close, I'd just like to non-confrontationally comment to follow-up...in order...

- The Habs defense was pretty good in 2008 on paper...this is before Komisarek sucks remember...maybe a mediocre team, but the defensive depth was rather good on paper I feel...

- Yeah, a lot of what I said was just based on my memory, didn't check stats really in any great depth (minus that Islander year), especially advanced stuff...figured you'd use it to either confirm or question what I said...it seems that Streit spent a good amount of time at forward which jives with my memory of Streit's time in Montreal...

- Yeah Streit was used differently in Montreal than on the Islanders. Markov was known to be the #1 guy that does it all...Streit could be moved all over the place and spark the offense...he wasn't counted on for defense and didn't provide very much of it...that changed when the expectations of him changed on Long Island...

- I'm not sure how it breaks down, but I would guess that as the year went on, Streit played against better competition more and more...again this is my memory hoping that numbers back me up though...as I remember it, Witt just couldn't skate with these guys anymore...I mean, come on, Witt vs. Crosby in 2008 or 2009 or whenever, Witt would get back just in time to pull the puck out of the net...I thought Witt was moved down the lineup as the year went on and Streit took on more heartier portions as he gained confidence with being a #1 guy and playing like one...could be mistaken, but that's how I think it went...

- The GAAon vs. GAAoff doesn't do a ton for me without context (no fault of yours, just overall indifference to numbers in instances where I saw what happened)...and with the Isles goaltending in recent years, it's unclear what can be chalked up to just "this guy happened to be out there for yet another bad goal"...a little bit of luck involved in this special circumstance...having the GAA of the team go down when he's out there is a major improvement from his time in Montreal (when the inverse was true according to what you dug up, yes?). To wit, the only player I remember being better defensively on that team was Martinek (who was very good)...Streit improved noticeably...not sure what the numbers say but if Martinek and Streit are considered 1 and 2 as the best defensive players on that team than it jives with what I saw on the ice...

- @ #4. How did it happen? Start in the zone, 20 seconds in the zone, no partner (or even quality forwards) to keep the puck in the zone opposite of Streit (who isn't very strong anyway), end of the shift going the other way, shot on net, whistle...Streit out, Martinek in for the defensive zone draw, puck out of the zone, dumped in offensively...change...not sure...I'm not sure of it's of overall importance either...

- Since Streit became a sure, full-time d-man (not a weird specialist type player like he was in Montreal, I don't count that in this case) he has blown the doors off of Rozsival even at his absolute best. I'm not sure what numbers suggest otherwise, but I would highly question them. Streit has always been significantly better than Rozsival offensively...and defensively, Rozsival is no prize pig either...average at his peak...doesn't move his feet well enough when attacked in transition, stops moving and reaches, reknowned for his ability to trip opponents in the 5 feet on either side of the blueline...when he was this "go-to guy" (not sure I recall that), he must have been told to go to the box a lot too...

- I value balanced players as much (maybe more) than the next guy...believe me...been a coach for a number of years, ranging from "rather" to "very" defensive-minded. Not that it justifies my position on Streit (wasn't designed to) but I'm very, very aware of quality defensive players and their value (see: my rants on Byfuglien getting Norris votes over Enstrom, etc.).

- Redden after Ottawa was nothing special...career value, is a matter for the courts, I'm assuming Redden would win...it seemed like Streit was used in a wonky matter in Montreal...I don't necessarily fault him for that...Streit probably would have improved the Devils, even though Martin was really good for them...Martin was a very good puck carrier that replaced Scott Gomez, and Streit could have done the same thing...wasn't quite as good defensively, but the Devils would have had his back I theorize...may have cost Oduya some ice time, but they could have supported him...because he is far, far from a liability...

- @TDMM - same for me, the only one that made me think for a second was Martin...that was close...ain't close no more, is it...

- I'm not sure how it breaks down, but I would guess that as the year went on, Streit played against better competition more and more...again this is my memory hoping that numbers back me up though...as I remember it, Witt just couldn't skate with these guys anymore...I mean, come on, Witt vs. Crosby in 2008 or 2009 or whenever, Witt would get back just in time to pull the puck out of the net...I thought Witt was moved down the lineup as the year went on and Streit took on more heartier portions as he gained confidence with being a #1 guy and playing like one...could be mistaken, but that's how I think it went...

You could very well be right… I don’t think there is anything one can do to conclusively prove that. But I know Witt declined very rapidly from a trade deadline pickup worth (!?!) a 1st round pick, to a slow, useless player who couldn’t stick on a bad team.

Quote:

having the GAA of the team go down when he's out there is a major improvement from his time in Montreal (when the inverse was true according to what you dug up, yes?).

Right.

Although, one thing. When you say “context”, that is what the zone starts and QoC provide. For example, if he appeared to have a negative impact on GAA, one could point to strong completion and low offensive zone starts as an ‘excuse’ for such a number. But he doesn’t really have those excuses. Anyway, it sounds like you’re trying to say we need to contextualize the context and even after all that it could still be luck. Yes, it could. I’m not sure that can really be proven or disproven. Corsi helps (the 10X larger sample size removes most if not all of the luck) – and he is a good Corsi player - but does nothing to account for the impact of QoC and zone starts – factors which can be completely responsible for a player looking good in Corsi.

Quote:

Streit has always been significantly better than Rozsival offensively...and defensively, Rozsival is no prize pig either...average at his peak...doesn't move his feet well enough when attacked in transition, stops moving and reaches, reknowned for his ability to trip opponents in the 5 feet on either side of the blueline...when he was this "go-to guy" (not sure I recall that), he must have been told to go to the box a lot too...

Haha. Seriously though, we must value different things when looking at the number. If a defenseman can consistently be the player that a coach relies on the most, and a team that relies on this player the most can be good, he’s doing a lot of things right.

It’s one thing if you’re on a good team but not very important, or if you’re important but only to a bad team (like Streit has been) but when you check both boxes this should be recognized as a good thing!